Politix

Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

LIBERAL BIAS?

Why Are Only 6% of Scientists Republicans?

Scientists see GOP as the enemy, claims science prof

Next>

by Mary Noble

Senior Editor t

Image: live2times.com

Why do only 6% of scientists identify as Republicans? It's because scientists mistakenly believe that Republicans are anti-science. That's according to Daniel Sarewitz, co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes at Arizona State University.

Sarewitz argues that belief is quite wrong. Republican politicians aren't the enemies of science, since science funding usually recieves bipartisan backing. He calls on scientists to demonstrate that "science is bipartisan" and prove to the public that they're not "a Democratic interest group."

But no, scientists are correct to see Republicans as the enemy, writes Amanda Marcotte in the American Prospect. She claims that the GOP has ignored or opposed funding for major research into climate change, stem cells, and vaccines.

"Sarewitz blames scientists for the politicization of science," says Marcotte, whereas "any fool can see that Republicans attacked first and scientists are just defending themselves."

Via the American Prospect and Nature.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Why do you think only 6% of scientists are Republicans?

View results

Comments (view in Forum)

  • Post Removed by Moderators
  •
    Ashstop
    !
    We republicans deal in facts, not theories, we don't get caught up in the sky is falling, the earth melting type of theories the liberals fall for.
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  • View all 66 replies >
  • PNWest
    !
    To me this is the number one reason that I have a problem with the republican party. As a party they seem incapable of dealing with the truth when it goes against their preconceived notions. The age of the universe - scientists pretty much agree it is around 14 billion years old - GOP says it is 6000 because the Bible says so (actually the Bible doesn't but they don't care). Evolution - pretty much accepted by all biologists - not so for the GOP (Noah got 2 of everything on the Ark didn't he). Statistics - Romney was going to win in a landslide right? Climate change - about 98% of scientists studying it believe it is man made - GOP says anytime it snows it proves global warming wrong. This is why one of their leading candidates for 2016 says they need to stop being the party of stupid. On this point I agree with Bobby Jindal. Yes I have stereotyped the GOP here but is is certainly not far off the mark.
  • o
    cleverusername
    !
    @PNWest Please provide the proof that the Republican Party platform says the earth is 6000 years old. While at it please provide the same for evolution.
  • PNWest
    !
    @cleverusername I admitted that I have stereotyped the GOP primarily because many if not most self identified republicans believe these things. They are certainly common beliefs of the evangelical right which makes up a good portion of the GOP. I never claimed them to be in the GOP platform.
  • View all 29 replies >
  • u
    Cheenoguy
    !
    If Republicans start to recognize evolution and climate change as facts maybe science wouldn't view them as enemies.
    When facts trump faith they might get more scientists in their party.
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    Climate change is the result of god getting hot under the collar because public schools won't teach evolution. That's a republican scientific theroy.
  • MarkJM
    !
    There's a BIG difference between book smarts and common sense smarts. It's common fact that these "scientists" are good with books, but have no common sense. That's why they hate the GOP.
  • Keyjo
    !
    So, do you believe the world is flat or round?
    Do you understand how gravity keeps us from flying away?
    Do you know anyone with an artificial limb?
    There's a reason why "book smarts" is also referred to as "higher learning."
  • Denizen_Kate
    !
    IMO the experts quoted in the article, and all of you posting comments, have it wrong. When only 6% of a group tends in a direction, there is a much more substantial reason. Here is my theory based on a lifetime of self-education and avid reading of many scientific topics. It's just my thoughtful opinion, so try not to tear me a new one for it.

    The conservative mind-set is just that: set. This is neither right or wrong, good or bad, it just is. Every conservative I've ever met has a strong preference for absolutes. Things either work a certain way or they don't. Something either exists or it doesn't. Conservatives are people of strong convictions, and will stick to their beliefs even when those convictions are wrong. There is a resistance to change, a resistance to refutation of beliefs, so much so that many a pundit, online blogger, journalist and media personality make a really good living spinning scientific facts and actual events and statements into refutable theories or even outright lies. They know what their conservative audience wants to hear, and they find ways to provide it. Conservatives are so convinced of their correctness that they find great fault with any who disagree. Absolutes are very comforting, especially where religion is concerned. Think about it: life on earth is never neat and tidy and rarely warm and fuzzy. It is short and often messy, if not brutal. Who wants to believe that this is all we get? It is much more comforting to believe that if you behave a certain way, your "immortal soul" will go to a place where all is sweetness and light.

    Scientists, on the other hand, need more flexibility in their thinking. Changes occur often in science during the course of calculation and experimentation. The scientific mind needs to be open to being wrong, open to learing a new approach, open to doubt. Some things become absolute facts, but nothing is ever static. Knowledge is a constantly accummulative thing. New discoveries happen pretty much daily.

    IMO the liberal, or progressive, person is much more open, not only to change but to the possibility of being wrong now and then, of learning something new through research or discourse (as we do here on this site - or some of us do, at least). Liberals are less rigid in their thinking, and more prone to "prove it to me" logical thinking. As I stated, neither right or wrong, good or bad, just different in the approach to life and change.

    For what it's worth (which to many of you is probably not very much!).:)
  • paperdragons81
    !
    @Denizen_Kate Well I don't know if your 100% right, but at least your trying to systematicly break it down with out lowering yourself to an easy attack. I myself love science but don't accept theory as fact, and yes my religous beleafs do heavily influence my perspective.
  • Denizen_Kate
    !
    @paperdragons81 - Of course your beliefs into into pretty much every aspect of your life. Like I said, neither right or wrong, good or bad, just a different way of thinking.
  • View all 23 replies >
  • AtheistStand
    !
    Ummmmm stem cell research......anyone?

    Theists have always attempted to retard science. Its a FACT people........ohhh and "god" hates condoms and the Earth is at the center of the universe.(rolls eyes)

    Now thats some hardcore science right there!!!!!

    When science disproves your god, well now we just “caint” have that.

    Republicans are mostly religious, religion and science will never agree.

    Easy to understand.
  • View all 10 replies >
  • scotta
    !
    They do not like Republicans because they prove them wrong. Remember "Global Warming", they just get all pissy over things like this. The blocked stem cell research.
  • Gtiallday
    !
    How did republicans prove scientist wrong? Republicans are not experts in science by any means. I'm sorry but if you are going to take politicians advise about science over a scientists then you sir are an idiot.
  • Knightkore
    !
    http://www.geekosystem.com/scientists-are-lia...

    Scientific papers being retracted after publication isn’t some kind of new phenomenon. The age of press releases might have made such snafus a more widely-known event, but it’s one of those things that happens from time to time. Common wisdom was that the majority of retractions were due to errors present in the work, but a new study has concluded that it’s actually misconduct like fraud or plagiarism that causes most retractions. In other words, scientists aren’t dumb; they’re just liars.

    PhysOrg breaks down how the new study came to this conclusion:

    The study reviewed 2,047 papers retracted from the biomedical literature through May 2012. To determine the reasons for the retractions, the researchers consulted several secondary sources, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Research Integrity and Retractionwatch.com , which investigate scientific misconduct.

    The researchers found that about 21 percent of the retractions were attributable to error, while 67 percent were due to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43 percent), duplicate publication (14 percent), and plagiarism (10 percent). Miscellaneous or unknown reasons accounted for the remaining 12 percent.
    The studies that investigated this issue previously only took into account the official retractions by the scientific journals — which are written by the authors of the paper being retracted. It’s not like they’re going to come right out and say,“We totally copied this bit from someone else,” or anything like that.

    {Just an interesting addition to the discussion....}
  • o
    AndrewEvans
    !
    As a member of the science community previously myself, I can say that anything that seems to help more people seems like it must be the best option. The left also caters to new advances much with much less skepticism. Another factor is the social aspect, if your friends and school are known for being one thing, would you oppose it? Scientists are pragmatic and always want to go with the best option. Scientists have a grasp of science. In my opinion though, if scientists were presented with all the facts, most would lean conservative-libertarian. I do not think most scientists know that the supposed rich to poor redistribution of wealth that the left advocates actually has the opposite effect.
  • u
    KyleMFb
    !
    Well it's pretty clear that republicans have problems with facts...and science is all about facts that's the main reason why there isn't any republican scientist the other reason is science is finding out why the things are the way they are that's what being a sciencetist is all about not just say god made it like that so don't do anything to change it or you'll go to hell if republicans had it their way people would still be dying from fevers
  • Knightkore
    !
    Of course aborted babies in the womb and using their parts for scientific research is so much better and morally ethical right?

    And I'm pretty sure it is progressive liberals that have problems with facts hence redefining everything under the sun....
  • u
    cpeter133
    !
    @Knightmare There are no babies in the womb, only fetuses. If they are aborted, they are no longer in the uterus. Stem cell research rarely uses aborted-fetal cells; even if they did, the fetuses aren't aborted for that purpose. Just like using the recently-deceased for transplants, why not use those stem cells to help people?
  • Knightkore
    !
    @cpeter133 You're a bit naive on what planned parenthood does and where aborted babies go to....and this is one of the reasons people are disgusted with scientists....you hide behind a scientific word in order to dismiss who is in the womb....and then justify....well if they're gonna be aborted why not? Interesting....how you use recently-deceased transplants....and compare that to willful killing of a person....in the womb....
  • u
    cpeter133
    !
    @Knightmare Disgusted with scientists? Why? Because they use facts and precise terminology instead of emotion and melodrama?

    I don't have to justify anything; reality speaks for itself.
  • View all 12 replies >
  • Knightkore
    !
    Progressive liberals open to new advances? Hmm...without the moral aspect to them right? I mean look at the advances in letting us know that there is a living human in the womb but progressive liberals sure don't like those advances....
  • u
    cpeter133
    !
    Your morality is yours; no one else has to follow it. You have a problem with gender-reassignment? It's none of your business.
  • Knightkore
    !
    @cpeter133 And it shouldn't be my business to pay for it through Obamacare....
    But progressive liberals....including their scientists....have made it our business....
  • u
    cpeter133
    !
    @Knightmare Just because some things are paid for by the government doesn't mean they are any of your business. If medicare pays for a heart operation, you don't get a copy of the report.
  • u
    cpeter133
    !
    @Knightmare Suck it up...my taxes went to blow up innocents in iraq and afghanistan. I had no say in it. You have no say in this.
  • View all 6 replies >
  • o
    Sharpshooter
    !
    Scientists often make their money from Research Grants. You are going to have a difficult time getting a grant from a cigarette manufacturer to prove that cigarettes cause birth defects in land sharks. It's not in their best interests to do so. SO a scientist looking into birth defects in land sharks shouldn't be wasting his time asking RJR for a grant.

    Republicans don't generally buy the Global Warming thing, they see it as a scam. Since Scientists go where the money is, they will gravitate toward money and the democrats.

    Republicans don't generally buy into Stem Cell research as it usually ties into fetuses and that looks a lot like abortion... Conservative people aren't pro abortion so they fight funding that research.

    Much of what the Business of Science is today is along a path Conservatives don't want to follow.... it doesn't take a PhD or a million dollar grant to figure that out.

    I wonder what the numbers would be were we to be funding more Space Exploration or High Tech stuff..... Maybe I should go out and buy a white coat and apply for a grant.... This Republican would become a scientist for a few years....
  • jessejaymes
    !
    What he means here is kind of like when 25,000 scientists said there was man made climate change and GW Bush hired 200 scientists to say there wasn't. Of course the 200 were all under indictment for manufacturing meth in their spare time.
  • u
    RobertJHarsh
    !
    A lot of those grants are restricted as well. For example, if you are an AIDS researcher, you cannot get funding unless you agree that HIV causes AIDS. But say it didn't. How would other research get done? I am using an non-real world example but my point is there are politics attached to these research grants.

    As for stem cell research and cloning, that research work needs to be done so one day, maybe we can grow a new leg for soldier who lost his in some war for a megacorp.

    Keep in mind a lot of these republicans still think the earth is 6,000 years old.
  • DerivePI
    !
    A few options -
    1. AAAS does not equal scientists. Perhaps conservative scientists do not like the AAAS for some reason and are not represented in the poll.
    2. PhDs are more exposed to the overt liberalism at colleges. Also, professors have a say in who advances and who doesn't. Since we know a majority of professors are terribly liberal (I only met one conservative adjunct professor at college), it is reasonable to expect a filtering affect. Of course this is a chicken/egg issue. Also brings up questions regarding fairness. A conservative professor who is fair and raises up students regardless of political agenda vs liberals who only promote liberals would eventually lead to the overtly liberal condition of our current reality.
    3. People who are fed from the public teet tend to be in favor of more milk.
  • DerivePI
    !
    @Knightmare - It probably goes a way into explaining why the advancement of science is not keeping up with population growth. If the per capita rate of science was growing like it did in the 1800s, solar panels and wind turbines might be advanced enough to compete with cheap oil. And whatever happened to gassification of coal (early 1900s)? Oh yeah, government. Instead of the US being the power house of science that it should be, we are slowly evaporating on pithy public policy issues like evolution and anthropogenic warming. When did we last go to the moon?
  • kathyparsell
    !
    @Knightmare this is an interesting topic and so I thank you & Derive PI for the first thoughtful and reasonable response I have seen so far.
  • Keyjo
    !
    OMG.......
    This is just too easy!
    No, I get in trouble on here enough already. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
  • WMCOL
    !
    A real no-brainer question. Conservatives are anti-progress, stuck in the past, opposed to change, and today's Republicans are the conservatives. Science has to be liberal, willing to ask questions, find new ways of doing things, go boldly into the future.

    But don't get it wrong. Today's conservatives, who are the Republicans, use science, but in a manipulative way to keep things the same and to seek a way to live further in the past.
  • R Load more comments...